My apologies, I just looked at your profile more closely and see that you identify yourself as an Atheist. I generally have engaged with TE and OEC proponents on this topic, but fundamentally you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Not sure we can find a common ground, but am happy to discuss further, if you are interested.
I wouldn't be on here if I wasn't interested in debating YECs. It kinda comes with being on this site if you aren't one yourself.
See Genesis 2:1-3. Gid did finish creation. This does not mean that things do not continue to go on or that He's done working, just that the specific acts of creating (John 1:1-3) did have a conclusion. I think when you say my suggestion doesn't make any sense, it is because you are viewing scripture through the filter of modern scientific views and assertions.
No, I said it didn't make any sense because you appeared to be saying that the process of evolution would have only had a singular day to affect populations of organisms. Thus I responded that even in the context of believing that the world is 6,000 years old with a 6 day creation that this wouldn't make sense. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding on my part or poor word choice on yours?
Within creation research, the term kind is linked to Baraminology (bara = created, min = kind) and it is a similar process/study/rigor as the systematics applied within taxonomy classification. The difference is that instead of just looking for possible linkages between living organisms, it also looks for where gaps are apparent - where boundaries exist that life forms do not cross (a little more context from a non-creationist source below):
https://ncse.com/library-resource/baraminology
I've mentioned before that creationists don't have any consistency as to what they consider kinds to be. For example, I have heard groups try to claim that members of the genus Australopithecus are the same species as ourselves, while others claim that they are chimpanzees. Neither of those conclusions fits with the physiology of the fossils, though. Others would claim that Neanderthals were old men with rickets or something, but we have Neanderthal DNA, we know they aren't the same species as us, but members of our species did have children with them a bit.
For example, dogs are a created kind and there can be a great variety/hybridization of dogs; however, scientists don't see evidence either in the fossil record or in living dogs today where they are developing feathers, flippers, beaks, wings, etc... - there are "boundaries" that prevents dogs from producing anything other than... dogs. This isn't even what is really important, we'll get to that down at the bottom.
I guess you aren't aware that there are dogs with webbed feet, huh? Furthermore, feathers are a very specialized type of skin structure that doesn't exist in mammalian lineages because mammals already have fur and traits like that don't develop independently multiple times. It would entirely defy our understanding of evolution and genetics for any lineage of dogs to develop feathers.
There are no boundaries that would prevent a lineage of dogs from eventually being able to fly, it just wouldn't be by a mechanism that is the same as any existing flying organism. The same basic adaptation can appear multiple times, but it'll be a bit different each time. Flight, for example, evolved independently 4 times: insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats. There are many non-flying organisms that glide, and it is not impossible that one of them may lead to lineages that end in flying organisms.
Something tells me the reason you don't believe in God has nothing to do with Genesis or Triops longicaudatus.
Actually, it has a lot to do with Genesis. I attribute my persisting atheism to reading the bible on my own, and subsequently reading texts of other faiths. I 100% do not think anyone in modern day has converted to Christianity just by reading the bible without any input from other people. But you are right in that the Triops have nothing to do with it.
How much research have you done on baraminology. The ark could have fit 2 of every kind
Thanks to an in depth description in the bible, we know the exact inner dimensions of the ark.
I got this comparison to some other ships from Answers in Genesis, of all places:
Now, for comparison, the carrying capacity of the Titanic was about 3,500 people and it carried enough food and water to last 2 weeks. Notice how it is a significantly larger ship than the ark as described in Genesis? And yes, I know this image doesn't depict width, but the Titanic is also the wider of the two. Noah's ark didn't just have to house the animals, it had hold enough food and water to last them a whole year. Those supplies would have exceeded the volume of the animals themselves greatly. And no, you can't disregard water because it rained; they can't drink the brine they are surrounded by, so they have to be able to store sufficient water.
The nastiest organisms to consider are the parasites. For example, at least one of the humans on the ark would have had to willfully host head lice (but let's be honest, they would have spread to everyone). And those are mild compared to hook worms, malaria, etc.
Not only that, but the ark is woefully unprepared for disposing of animal waste, having but 1 window. All of these parasite ridden animals would have gotten severely ill from the build up of feces, forced close proximity, and inevitable malnutrition.
, and there is enough time for variations within each kind over the past 4,500 +/- years... speciation has been seen over just a few generations in isolated populations (ex. finches with larger beaks). Again, this isn't even really all that important... moving on.
-_- the finches having trends in their beak shapes is not the same as them becoming a different species within a short period of time. These populations are not changing fast enough for them to have gotten their current degree of genetic and phenotypic diversity within thousands of years.
Furthermore, you mention some sort of limit to how much organisms can change, but literally any segment of your DNA, whether it is a gene or not, is capable of experiencing mutations. The ones that almost always result in death, like HOX genes, clearly aren't the source of most of the phenotypic variation in different species, considering the fact that even humans and fruit flies share many of the same HOX genes.
I don't know anybody willing to martyred for Taco Tuesday - though I think we can all agree that Taco Tuesday is a good idea.
I think the vegans may protest that. However, whether or not someone is willing to become a martyr for something is not an indication that their views or beliefs are valid in some regard. It just means that they are extremely passionate. Just about every religion has martyrs, and many political movements do as well, regardless as to whether or not they were good for society or accurate in their messages.
NOBODY is willing to die for something they believe is a lie and any opportunity or minuscule shred of a way to avoid death, we'd all prefer it.
I never suggested that martyrs didn't believe in their religions/causes. A Hindu martyr believes just as strongly as a Christian martyr, but in different gods. The strength of belief is not an indication of validity for a religion because quite frankly, people can believe ridiculous crap. Like believing that the Earth is flat or that the moon is a hologram (yes, there are actually people that believe that last one).
Please bear in mind that the thousands upon thousands that have been (and continue to be) martyred for their faith in God is not because of some flippant man-made notion simply invented to help scared people sleep better at night.
That's not how atheists view religions. From a society standpoint, the function of religion tends to be to control people through fear, not alleviate it. Fear of the negative afterlife, fear of angering a god, etc. You had to follow the rules of the church, or go to hell for your disobedience. You deserve to be a member of the lower caste, because you must have committed evil in a past life that you need to make up for (in reference to Hinduism). It enforces the status quo.
It is understandable that you wouldn't want to think that people would die for a belief that is inaccurate, that they would die in the name of a god that doesn't exist. But alas, no matter what your personal beliefs are, you have to acknowledge that there are many such people, because at most, only 1 religion can be right, and it is very possible that none of them are.
It appears that God chooses to work through people, that is His way... and this doesn't seem to have been a poor approach as almost every obscure part of the world has heard of Christianity and has over 2 billion today who claim to be Christians.
Christianity was but a tiny cult until one of the Roman emperors made it the official religion of his empire. It wouldn't even reach the ears of people in the Americas until many centuries later. By the way, either all those people went to hell despite never having the opportunity to become a Christian, or they only began to risk hell when missionaries spread the news, if your religion is correct. If the former is true, you can't call your god good, and if the latter is true, spreading the word just sends more people to hell.
God wants a personal relationship with His children, not a broadcast and impersonal voice booming from a distant platform.
-_- it's a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient deity; it could talk to every individual person in a private conversation if it wanted a personal relationship with people. Which is not what happens during prayer, by the way, that's your own voice in your head and the part of the brain associated with recognizing self is less active than normal. An effect associated with frequent prayer. It's measurably different to actually hearing someone else's voice in terms of how your brain interprets it. That is, the more frequently a person prays and expects an outside voice to give a response, the harder and harder it becomes for them to tell that it is their own internal thoughts responding. Personally, though, I've never gotten a response despite praying for years. Probably because all I pray for is belief, which isn't a question or a problem my own mind can address.
Some of His children are called to be prophets as is referenced in the OT - and others were called to be in other roles.
Supposedly; nothing is stopping these people from just claiming divine right without ever being in contact with a deity. This you must believe for everyone that has claimed divine right by a deity you don't believe in, so how doesn't it apply to the deity you believe in?
The questions you really need to be asking isn't around what scientists believe (or don't believe) or what some misinterpret as discontinuities between Genesis 1 and 2; but what is it that really has driven you away from wanting to be with the One who made you, and why you continue to reject His love for you today.
Nothing annoys me more than people that assume I don't want to believe or that I'm not dedicated to it. I cry myself to sleep at night over this, I am fully biased in favor of there being an afterlife, deities, etc. I don't believe because there is no evidence upon which for me to base belief, no aspect of the bible that makes it special compared to any other "holy book", no direct evidence of deities or an afterlife. There is nothing. If you actually have something, then please, present it, but if all you have to offer is "try harder" or "you'll believe some day I'm sure", then you are not helpful to me.
